Alongside our previous tests of premium 92 mm Noctua fans, we’re adding something for value-focused users. For the more affordable Prime-series card, these are a better match. We’ll measure how much quieter the card gets after swapping the stock fans for budget 92 mm Arctic P9 PWM PST models with sleeve bearings, and compare the noise to the Arctic P9 PWM PST CO variant with dual ball bearings for continuous operation.
I discussed the operating characteristics of the Prime GeForce RTX 5070 in a review a few months ago. The sample I tested had one fan noisier than the others. Because of that, the card was not completely quiet even at minimum speeds. The card was more audible than it could have been. However, this would probably not be accepted as a reason for an RMA. With most Asus cards, though, you can easily replace the fans, because they allow the shroud to be removed without taking off the heatsink.
The Prime RTX 5070 is 30 cm long, but relatively narrow. Due to its proportions, classic system fans with dimensions of 120×120 or 140×140 mm are therefore not very suitable for the cooler. Compared to two 120mm fans it is longer, but for three it is already too short.
The heatsink under the shroud is divided into two fin stacks. Thanks to this, two 120mm fans can be mounted so that they blow over most of the fin area.
We already tried this in one of the previous articles. However, two 120mm fans are wider than the trio of original fans on the Prime RTX 5070, so they overhang to the sides and part of the airflow passes outside the heatsink.
The surface of the heatsink is better covered by a trio of smaller 92mm fans. In previous tests, we replaced the trio of Asus Axial-Fan units with three low-profile 92mm Noctua NF-A9x14 fans and Noctua NF-A9 fans with the standard 25 mm thickness. With them, the card’s width can remain the same, and they can blow air over more fins than two larger fans.
Today we will test how the card behaves with another set of fans measuring 92×92×25 mm, this time from Arctic. I will measure the operating characteristics using the Arctic P9 PWM PST model with fluid dynamic bearings. In addition, I will also include noise measurements with the Arctic P9 PWM PST CO variant featuring dual ball bearings, which I assumed could be slightly noisier due to the ball bearing type.
The fan comes in a simple box. Inside, apart from the fan itself, there is only a small bag with four self-tapping screws for mounting.
Some Arctic models carry the PWM PST suffix in their name, which stands for Power Sharing Technology and means that, compared to most standard fans, they have one special feature—a splitter built into the fan connector, allowing you to daisy-chain multiple fans together. This is particularly useful for a graphics card with a trio of fans. The cabling is also more flexible and easier to tuck under a potential shroud than was the case with the Noctua fans connected via the supplied splitters.
Another option is to use fans with a standard four-pin connector connected to a different type of splitter, which Arctic also offers in its portfolio. Up to four fans can be connected at once to their 4-pin PWM Fan Splitter. The result is also more compact and, compared to daisy-chained splitters, less prone to failure due to poor contact or one of the connectors in the chain coming loose.
| Size (Form factor) | 92 × 92 × 25 mm |
| Speed range | 0–3000 rpm |
| Airflow (max.) | 65.97 m³/h (38.83 CFM) |
| Static pressure (max.) | 3.12 mm H₂O |
| Rated voltage | 12 V |
| Current | 0,12 A |
| Connector | 4-Pin Fan Plug + 4-Pin Socket |
| Colour | Black |
| Warranty | 6 years |
Included accessories:
- 4× Fan screws
For mounting the fans, I modeled a simple frame. With a length of around 30cm, it does not fit on most common 3D printers, so it is divided into two parts. The feet are separate. It is a printed plastic part, so it is not as robust and can be easily replaced if damaged; also, during prototyping I do not have to print the entire frame if the shape needs to be adjusted, for example because it does not fit exactly on the screw holes on the card or collides with some component.
Everything is screwed together using M2 screws for plastic. You can easily buy them in packs of hundreds in Chinese e-shops.
For now, we will test the bare frame, which is seated in grooves at the corners of the heatsink fins.
The fans were mounted using short silicone anti-vibration pins from Noctua. An alternative is the newer NA-SAV4 type, which already supports fans with heights of 10, 14, 15, 20, and 25 mm.
First, we will look at how the card performed in terms of cooling across the entire range of operating fan speeds with the stock fans, and then we will go through the operating characteristics of the card with the Arctic P9 PWM PST fans.
⠀
I’m very grateful for this test. I always lacked motivation to check how much better my temperatures actually are after a deshroud and if using 92 mm fans might be a better option. I just always went straight for 120 mm fans, even though they were sticking out, because of the “bigger = better” assumption and both temperatures and noise were always better than with stock fans. Recently, however, I finally managed to gather the determination to roughly compare a deshroud with 2× Phanteks T30 versus 3× Arctic F9, and the results align with what was tested here. Is this the end of this saga/series, or are there still some other fan models lined up for testing?
note: the test with 2 x 140 mm fan was performed on a different graphics card. 😉
May I be curious and ask how the comparison went for you: 3 x 92 P9 vs 2 x 120 T30?
At similar room temperatures, 2x T30 (mounted in a printed shroud where fans was fully enclosed inside) reached a maximum of 85.2*C and an average of 83.3 °C with a peak power draw of 306.3 W, while 3x F9 reached 84.2*C max and 81.3*C average with a peak power draw of 312.7 W.
Test was ran by loading a CP2077 save at maximum graphic settings with path tracing enabled, without moving the character or camera, and letting it run like that for nearly an hour. The results were collected via HWiNFO64, which was reset immediately before pressing the key to load the game. Fans speeds were fixed at comparable noise levels, measured using a smartphone app. Iirc ~1250 rpm for T30 and ~1500 rpm for F9.
However, the result is not precise because I did not control temperature in the room. I only measured it with a simple rectangular meter with a humidity readout, which accuracy is questionable. The same applies to the consistency and accuracy of in-room sound level measurements taken with a smartphone app. That is why I am particularly interested in whether these results were just coincidence caused by external factors, or whether they reflect a real difference.
nice work, thank you very much for your input 👍 😉
I’d like to add my thanks as well—very nice documentation. Cyberpunk 2077 will (probably) be a serious stress test that really pushes the graphics card almost to its very limits. 🙂
Exactly. CP2077 was a good non synthetic stress for card as it never came close to 60 FPS and iirc never crossed 50 FPS mark and always was 99% loaded. Thanks for kind words and you’re welcome 🙂
Lower temperatures don’t necessarily mean more efficient cooling. Control over GPU clock speeds is also important—we address this in CPU cooler testing as well. Power draw in watts is, of course, important too, but it doesn’t allow for a clear-cut conclusion that “more is better.” Higher power consumption can often be driven by greater thermal losses precisely because cooling efficiency is lower. That said, I’m referring here to experience with processors running on motherboards. 🙂
I definitely agree! When I saw how long my comment become, I deliberately limited it to reporting only the power draw, assuming it would give a sufficient picture under assumption that higher power draw translates into higher clocks. As you rightly pointed however higher temperatures also mean lower power efficiency, which in turn leads to higher power consumption. This is very easly observable with CPUs. Der8auer once did a test on this and visualized it very well.
Thats said, to complete the picture, here are the recorded clock results for those configurations:
2x T30: core 3135 MHz max, 2833.5 MHz average; Memory temps: 76*C max, 74,1*C average.
3x F9: core 3202 MHz max, 3015.2 MHz average; Memory temps: 76*C max, 73,8*C average.
In both setups memory clocks were stable at 2833.5 MHz through whole time. I should also add that the GPU is a 5070 Ti with OC set to +400 on core and +3000 on memory in MSI Afterburner.
Now… the winner…in your case is incontrovertibly clear 😉
The fact that higher power consumption does not automatically mean higher CPU clock speeds can also be seen in our cooler tests. Beyond a certain point, as temperatures increase, power consumption may continue to rise while CPU core clock speeds sometimes start to drop. 🙂
As far as 92 mm fans go, that’s probably all for now—but tests with Arctic P12 Pro fans will likely appear soon. 🙂
…and maybe, if I’ve motivated Adam enough 🫣😀😉,
…a test with 2 140mm fans will appear later
Coolermaster has a custom ASUS built series of 5080 cards with a shroud specifically designed to enable swapping out the fans with standard 120mms with accommodations for standard thickness and other marques of fan. I wish other companies, like say, Sapphire would jump on this train.
I’ve seen that solution from CM and I really regret that it’s only a prototype/visual concept with no plans to bring it to market but that would be absolutely fantastic! Personally, I could even live with the same pricing and no stock fans included, as long as I could install my own, let’s say, 10-32 mm thickness range if only that became a standard. Ideally, though, the best solution would be something like with AIOs: you have the option to mount your own fans, but there are also “off-the-shelf” fans included out of the box.
Cooler Master likely has more motivation than Sapphire to produce graphics cards like this. They have their own fans that can be used, whereas Sapphire doesn’t really focus on offering standalone fans in its portfolio. 🙂
End user replacable fans *are* a feature that’s proliferating on modern radeons IIRC, so it may be less of a leap – especially as Sapphire has marketed CPU coolers outside of the global north before. Getting into the chassis fan market isn’t that improbable for them I’d think, if they want to diversify. IIRC, I’ve heard good things said about their cooler fan designs too, so they may be able to field some credible offerings too, with that experience.
Perhaps the possibility of entering the global CPU cooler market is closer than it seems
https://www.sapphiretech.com/en/consumer/nitro-s360a-aio-cpu-cooler
This is not new one, but it is on the global EN web
Review (TPU) from 2022
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-nitro-s240-a-aio-liquid-cpu-cooler/
Hopefully, Sapphire AIO coolers will eventually make their way to our market as well, similar to their motherboards. 🙂
Yes, Sapphire has been involved in cooling solutions—at least in the past—when it comes to CPU coolers. However, the Vapor-X model apparently didn’t gain much traction on the market, and that may be one of the reasons why their motivation to continue in this segment declined. 🙂
The removable fans on Nitro+ graphics card coolers are excellent, and personally, I’m really rooting for Sapphire to push things to the next level. 🙂
Hi hwcooling,
What a gooood job that you made here !
I think that if you want to have a better cooling, one of the good update is to add extra rear fan (without the backplate) to help the right fan to extract hot air !
I think that if you try that, the cooling will be better !
(Sorry for my baaaddd english 😬)
well, existing examples do not support this assumption… 😉
https://www.hwcooling.net/en/aorus-geforce-rtx-5080-master-whats-the-fourth-fans-benefit/4/
the thickness of the heatsink and its density do not require a pull-push setup…
moreover, the proximity of two fans that would spin at the same speed can lead to so-called beat frequency (When two waves (like sound waves) with close frequencies combine, they constructively and destructively interfere.)
We addressed the benefits of a fourth fan on the RTX 5080 Master graphics card cooler here, as Bufo also points out. 🙂
Any chance of you releasing the stl files? Or, preferably step files so we can make changes. There are a few Asus prime shrouds out there but I really think the way you separated the legs as separate parts is clever. And looks good too.
Thx.
I plan to make it available for download here and on Printables in two weeks or so—would that be okay? I need to make a few adjustments: some screw posts on the legs don’t line up perfectly with the PCB holes—there’s a 0.5–1 mm offset. I’ll realign the screw posts to match the PCB holes, tweak the corner pockets for the silicone pads to improve printability, and add a version for two 120 mm fans.
And yes, I can provide STEP files. The model comes from Rhino 3D and will be a closed boundary representation (BREP)—a joined polysurface. It should import as a solid, but it may not behave the same as STEP files from typical parametric CAD tools.
Thanks for responding. I’d take whatever you have without you having to put more work into it.
Yeah, the shroud design looks good and it will probably work well too. There are no gaps between the fan and the shroud structure where static pressure could escape. That means airflow through the radiator should be high—though of course it still depends on which fan model is used and at what speed. 🙂
The Thermalright TL-P9 work pretty quiet on my 5070Ti Prime. They have 2200 rpm as maximum rpm and usally stay below 2000 under load through the MODDIY Adapter, which is still tolerable when gaming with desktop speakers.
I’m looking for a solution in pull configuration though, as i have the GPU in upside down orientation in an inverted sff case (McPrue Apollo SE).
Any tips on what to use there? Are Phanteks T30 worth a try?
If the 120 mm T30 fans fit, then using them as a pair would definitely be a good choice. That also applies to Noctua NF-A12x25 (G2)—or really any fans that rank at the top of our measurements on radiators. I wouldn’t be afraid of Arctic P12 Pro either, even though there are frequent user reports saying they get noisier in pull configuration. That may be true on case grilles, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to radiators. It might—or it might not. Either way, it would definitely be worth trying. Aerodynamically, the P12 Pro fans are very well designed, and given their low price point… 🙂
Based on your experience, what fan size would you recommend for the Asus TUF 5070? It has the same dimensions as Asus TUF 5070 Ti (330x140mm), which you deshrouded already. I’m leaning towards two 120mm fans (perhaps the low-speed version of the Noctua NF-A12x25 G2), but I worry that I will be far off from covering the length.
Based on what I’ve tested: if I were going with two fans, I’d probably choose the NF-A14x25 G2; if I wanted to save some money, I’d pick the Arctic P14 Pro PST instead.
https://www.hwcooling.net/en/tuf-rtx-5070-ti-deshroud-2x-140-mm-noctua-nf-a14x25-g2/7/
For a 120 mm setup, I’d install three NF-A12x25 fans or three Arctic P12 Pro fans.
In fact, it would be also interesting to compare a deshroud with two and with three 120mm fans, so it’s clear how much the third fan helps.
Thanks for the comment—I don’t think I could have replied to Taisho any better myself. 🙂
Yes, adding a third 120 mm fan could improve cooling efficiency, but compatibility then becomes an issue. The graphics card would become very long and start conflicting with many cases. With two fans, compatibility is already above average and much easier to maintain. 🙂